• "AJ" <aj nospam.net> Nov 06 2009
• Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> Nov 07 2009
• "AJ" <aj nospam.net> Nov 08 2009
• "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> Nov 09 2009

"AJ" <aj nospam.net> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 Oh, and BTW, invariant is deprecated, use immutable instead.

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:57:24 -0600, AJ wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 Oh, and BTW, invariant is deprecated, use immutable instead.




I assume you are referring to the use of 'invariant' in the 
documentation? If so, you should report it as a bug.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/

"AJ" <aj nospam.net> writes:

Jesse Phillips wrote:
 On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:57:24 -0600, AJ wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 Oh, and BTW, invariant is deprecated, use immutable instead.




 I assume you are referring to the use of 'invariant' in the
 documentation? If so, you should report it as a bug.

 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/


pfft 

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:57:24 -0500, AJ <aj nospam.net> wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 Oh, and BTW, invariant is deprecated, use immutable instead.




Do you mean the docs say invariant instead of immutable?  At least for the  
spec, it's mostly updated to use immutable instead of invariant.

Also note that invariant still means something when you are talking about  
class/struct invariants.

One axiom to open source software -- docs always are last in line for  
attention ;)  As the other poster says, file a bug if you notice a problem.

-Steve